Very interesting post from Deon Barnard about how he became an atheist.
Addresses a lot of the normal criticisms levelled against atheists.
James
All in all, it’s an inspiring testimonial of a deconversion. That said, it is worth noting that it plays much more on the reader’s emotions than his or her ability to reason. Perhaps this is just one more reflection of Deon Barnard’s self-confessed passionate character, which may, in time with familiarity and disillusionment, lead him away from his current beliefs into others that hearken to a different and novel set of superstitions.
If this were to happen, it would be, needless to say, a great pity.
Speculation aside, there is one aspect in Barnard’s chronicle that I take strong exception to. It is where he writes:-
This position is neither logically nor theologically defensible. Or rather, it is only defensible via the employ of the verbose doublespeak that is theology, theodicy and apologetics. We are, we are authoritatively told, made in “god’s image,” albeit with “free will.” Who made this “free will?” To what standard? Does this god have the same kind of “free will” or did s/he bless us with just enough to have an excuse for accepting us in heaven if we’re good or sending us to hell if we’re bad, according to the standards s/he him/herself set? Can we logically separate an avowedly contingent creation from its creator?
Moreover, bombastic prolixity aside, theology prides itself (wrongly, mind you) on highbrow rigour regarding its argumentation in respect of the nature of (a, any) god, his/her relationship to the world, and how this nature and relationship can be inferred from facts about the disposition of the world and its people.
The logic of the situation is clear: If we cannot infer (a, any) god’s nature from that of his ostensible creations, we cannot make any valid inferences about him/her at all, and the whole of theology/theodicy/apologetics comes crashing down through a gigantic hole of illogic through its middle. This logical inevitability can hardly be stressed enough. If, on the other hand, we allow that the world reflects the nature of a posited deity, then we must also allow that people do likewise. The compartmentalised thinking that is the essence of the above citation is exactly the kind of thinking that we need a lot less of.
The reader may consider the above a minor or unimportant point, or perhaps even mean-spirited nitpicking. I do not think it is. Why? Because it cuts to the very heart of magical, mystical and inconsequent thinking: Once again, we are expected to accord (a, any) god special rigour-free considerations, even when argued from an atheist/rationalist stance.
Sorry Deon, but that simply isn’t good enough, and I do hope that it represents the last vestige of inconsistency in your thinking.
'Luthon64
I honestly don’t see why you take exception to this position.
Either the christian god’s character is knowable or is not knowable. If it is not knowable then his character cannot be inferred from his followers (or from any other means). If it is knowable then the question is how it can be discovered. When exploring the character of an agent you can either directly interact with the agent (and I know that I don’t have to convince you that this option isn’t available) or we can observe the effects that the agent has on the environment. The effects on the environment range from what we can call strong effects (direct usable evidence based on deduction) to weak effects (indirectly inferred from circumstantial evidence). I put it to you that inference of character based on the character of followers is of the weaker variety, and here’s why.
For the sake of continuing the discussion, let’s ignore the fact that the god in question is likely imaginary and assume that the character of this god is somehow knowable.
As an example we can evaluate the character of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer who killed seventeen men and boys over thirteen years. You and I aren’t able to interview Dahmer, but based on the direct evidence of the murders he committed and the testimony of psychologists we know that he was a deeply disturbed, psychotic individual. But what does this tell us about his father? Can we infer that his father was psychotic? After all, we could argue that he was the “creation” of his father.
I can’t seem to agree with your position even if we consider the inspiration argument; that the actions of christians who are inspired by their god show that their action are what their god wants and points to their god’s character. Even if all christians did the same things in the name of their god, they all sang from the same hymn sheet so to speak, it could only be considered as a inference from a weak effect because “inspiration” is a far weaker effect than any other. I could be inspired by Zapiro to illegally paint cartoons on public walls, but it would be daft to insist that my action points to what Zapiro would have done or even wanted me to do. But all this talk of inspiration is for nought because we all know that christians don’t all sing from the same hymn sheet as seen in the vastly different actions of the nutters (the Westborough Baptists, the KKK, the Evangelicals and the Creationists) right through to the more sane, less hateful and mostly harmless Liberal christian.
But perhaps I’m just misunderstanding your position.
James
I thought I had explained that well enough: Because it is a particularly glaring example of the kind of disjointed, dichotomous thinking that leads to faith-based rationales and magical, compartmentalised thinking in the first place.
Exactly. The surreptitious crime against logic is that religionists want it both ways, according to the demands of any given situation. Barnard perpetuates this two-faced take, and for the reasons stated, his blunt assertion flies in the face of coherent and consequent logical reasoning. It expects the reader to have a god that is both within and outside of reason, depending on what the religionist wishes to “prove.” Either we are coherent in our application of logical reasoning or we must admit that we can say whatever pleases us about (a, any) god without fear of counterargument because any such can be dismissed as instances where logic no longer applies. In the latter case, a dispassionate logical assessment demands that we recognise that we do not even know what we are talking about, and integrity would demand that we then remain silent on it. If (a, any) god is knowable then Barnard’s assertion plainly contradicts that position; if not, he has issued an empty and meaningless statement because it is unsupportable by any means whatsoever. In either case, he propounds it as if it were to be taken seriously, and that, I’m afraid, is logically untenable.
That’s your prerogative.
'Luthon64
True, but perhaps one should consider that few people are able to rigorously apply logic to anything, let alone to a topic as emotionally loaded as religion. Could we also consider that there are atheists today who started “searching for the truth” because they felt moved by the injustice of certain religious concepts, and who only applied the logic later?
I agree that his “self-confessed passionate character… may … lead him away from his current beliefs … to a different and novel set of superstitions” but it is also possible that he will continue searching for better answers, becoming more dispassionate and applying “better” logic until he can view the matter entirely objectively.
I don’t mean to be his apologist, but I personally experienced that first sense of outrage as a 5 or 6-year old, which led me to a public rejection of religion at the 14 (oh my, the 80’s…). The science came much later; in those days, at that age, in an exclusively Afrikaans environment and school, “scientific proof” was a rather vague concept.
I don’t consider you to be nitpicking, you have a very valid argument, but personally, I am prepared to accept his stance as “not as damaging to the cause”.
This, Spike, raises an interesting question, phrased here in 4 different ways:
Are there really 50 ways to leave your faith, or is there only one valid path, the path of reason?
Is being sufficiently annoyed with God argument enough to reject his existence,(or bask in his absence)?
Is emotional atheism a step in the right direction, or a leap in the wrong direction?
Can one disbelieve for the wrong reasons?
Mintaka
Your faithlessness needs to be tested! You need to go out into the wilderness for forty-days-and-forty-nights minus grub. Every time you say “Jesus, I could sure use a cheeseburger and Coke” you have to start counting over. 
Perhaps not in any immediate/direct/obvious/overt way. However, it leaves a huge gaping logical hole for religious belief to hide behind (or inside, if you will). Specifically, it seriously undermines any possibility of showing up the utter illogicality of (a, any) supreme creator-god-hypothesis because it preserves respectability for the illogical idea that people – the ostensible product of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, supremely benevolent creator god – are not a reflection of that god’s nature, either because s/he contrived it so or because s/he is beyond logic, and therefore believers are free to make their god fit whatever mould they like. And, as an almost irrelevant aside, drawing an analogy between Jeffrey Dahmer and his father-as-creator is deeply flawed for several reasons, not least of which are that Dahmer was not representative of the human race and that his father is not credited with an almighty creator-god’s attributes.
The short of it is that Barnard’s ill-conceived declaration constitutes a nod to, an acknowledgement of the “respectability” of a dangerous kind of logical dualism where certain ideas are concerned.
There are probably as many ways as there are believers who have jettisoned their faith. Each thinking person will have their own “threshold of persuasion” that best encapsulates the set of criteria by which they gauge plausibility. Overall, I now find the overwrought complexity of an Abrahamic god sufficient to dismiss the notion – almost with a derisive snort, at that – but that is a distillation of a prior process that I would be hard-pressed to map out in all its agonisingly intricate details.
Obviously not in and of itself. Religious dogma in any case has a veritable arsenal of built-in safeguards against just this, but it would be foolish to deny that the weight of such annoyance can play a significant role in further ponderings on the question.
It’s a moot question. You may as well ask whether emotional attachment to any idea is fruitful or not. This can only be judged retrospectively with a knowledge of the consequences of the emotionally-held belief.
Yes. I’d’ve thought it was obvious enough how. Here’s one example: I can disbelieve in an Abrahamic god because I am a Hindi polytheist.
… or read Ennis and Dillon’s Preacher series to understand the true meaning of “search for god.” 
'Luthon64
Hi, Deon here.
That statement involved deism and Christians. I simply meant that the only way I could ever toy with the “God” idea is in the context of an originator who we know nothing about. In this context I would certainly not expect Christian behavior to define the originator. I was not referring to any Christian view of God. It was to highlight the fact that I did not get ‘disappointed’ in God because of what I saw in people.
On the point of being emotional rather than logical… I wasn’t writing in an attempt to prove to Skeptics that I’m a lay scientist or logician (though I hold those disciplines in high regard), I was writing to Christians who are sitting on the fence, or in the closet and saying “you’re not alone”. If you want to argue about my logic then feel free to do so on some of my other articles where I attempt to use science and logic, and show me the error of my ways.
Hi Deon and a warm welcome. 
Hope you will visit often.
Can you provide a link to an example please?
Mintaka
Thanks Mintaka. I’m sure I will.
http://www.deonbarnard.net/the-gamble-of-religion/
http://www.deonbarnard.net/3-reasons-to-give-up-religion/
http://www.deonbarnard.net/and-the-truth-shall-set-you-free…/
http://www.deonbarnard.net/why-religion-should-be-opposed/
Or just click on the religion and philosophy category for the whole lot.